Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Exercise: The Disappearance of David Hartley

Susan Murphy Milano did excellent work on this case


I am repeatedly asked for lessons and here is a portion of a lesson used in training.  We have a corporate training scheduled for Friday, July 11, 2014 in Bangor, Maine.  This will cover Analytical Interviewing, and how to protect a company from deceptive employees.  This exercise is used frequently for Human Resources, who often deal with phony suits.

Tiffany and David Hartley

This strange disappearance is no longer in the headlines, but continues to provide solid training material for detecting deception.  Some exercises are done best in groups, where investigators are able to call out answers and make suggestions.  It also allows for the observation of personality to go forward.

Is an investigator pushing for a conclusion?
Is an investigator "able" to be wrong?
Will anyone project his own psychological issues into the analysis?

You may print this out and fill out your answers.  This is only a portion of the study.  The complete work is reserved for training classes for law enforcement and businesses.


                         The Disappearance of David Hartley


 Investigator Training Analysis:  Group Exercise

Background:  On September 30, 2010, Tiffany Hartley made a 911 call.  She began the call with, “hello” and told the 911 operator that her husband had been shot while on the Mexican side of Falcon Lake, in Texas.

Statement Analysis of 911 calls is the work of Avinoam Sapir, founder of LSI.  Small sample studies have been done by others, but it is based upon Mr. Sapir's rare genius of language observations.  His trainings are both online and in person and can be found at:  LSI

HIs website is not a tool to sell trainings, as his samples are used for his own students. All Statement Analysts are in his debt.  He has set up the basic "Expected Versus Unexpected" which is applied in all scenarios, including 911 calls. 

So it is that an emergency call with a greeting is very much:  Not Expected.  By itself, it does not mean the caller has guilty knowledge, but it is a red flag for an analyst to note and carefully consider in his conclusion. 

Why do some people say "hello"?

It may be that the caller is seeking to be friendly, that is, to make friends.  We see in investigations guilty parties will commonly attempt to portray themselves as "friends" with police; after all, a "friend" who throw you under the bus.  "Friends" give each other passes, professional courtesies, or mercy.  

The emergency call that begins with a greeting may indicate guilt on the part of the caller.  It is, however, in Statement Analysis, flagged for its unexpected arrival.  

Shortly after, she contacted the Denver Post and gave her story to them. She reported that she and her husband, David Hartley, were moving from Texas back to Colorado, and went out for a last visit to Falcon Lake, where David wanted to take pictures of a church which, on the Mexican side, was under water.

It was on the lake, she said, that Mexican pirates opened fire on her and her husband, while they were on jet skis, knocking him into the air.  While they continued to fire upon her, she drove her jet ski to her injured husband, who lay floating face down, hit by gun fire to the head, and was forced, she said, to leave him to die, in order to save her own life.

After contacting the Denver Post, she began to show up on various news programs, including Good Morning America, The Today Show, On the Record with Greta Van Sustren, and upon each network news program, where, each morning and evening, the hosts declared her to be a hero, who courageously drove directly into oncoming bullets in an attempt to save her dying husband.

Gov. Perry from Texas declared her a hero and renewed his call for the border to be secured.  Hartley’s family called upon President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to make our border with Mexico a priority.
Gov. Perry stated that anyone who questioned Tiffany Hartley’s account needed to be “ashamed” of himself. Sheriff Ziggy Gonzalez, the chief law enforcement official from Falcon Lake Texas declared that Tiffany Hartley was "100% truthful," and that he saw “no need” for her to be polygraphed after Mexican officials expressed doubt over her story.

Then, one of the investigators into David Hartley’s disappearance was found be-headed. This came just after the investigator told media that two brothers were wanted in Hartley’s disappearance, as well as other drug related murders.

The news programs announced that this was evidence that Tiffany Hartley’s story was credible and that she was a young, courageous victim.  ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN all declared her story to be credible and that the unfortunate death of the investigator was “proof” that Tiffany told the truth.

Mexican prosecutors, however, stated that the investigator had acted on his own, and that the brothers he named as suspects, were not suspects in David Hartley’s disappearance, but were wanted in other drug related killings, suggesting that the investigator used the Hartley disappearance as an attempt to put pressure on US law enforcement to help bring in the two brothers.

The following are interviews Tiffany Hartley gave shortly after reporting her husband had been shot and killed by Mexican pirates. Your analysis follows.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tiffany, what happened?

Here is a great question.  It is simple, and allows the subject to:

1.  Begin the story were she wants to
2.  Use her own language

This is a perfect question followed by, "What happened, next?" yet it is not often used by television interviewers because it does not draw attention to the host, which is primary interest for the host who's job it is, not to gain information, but to gain viewers for herself. 
TIFFANY HARTLEY: David and I were on the Mexico side taking pictures. And we were heading back. Just had some boats come after us and started chasing us and started shooting at us. I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me. And I looked back and David was hit.


 She was asked "what happened?" but answered "Where" and not "what."

This means that "what happened?" is sensitive to the subject, as she began her answer with "where" they were located.  The location is her priority. 

1.  Why would the location be her priority?


2.  Note the word "just" in your analysis:





 3.  What do you make of "started"?



4.  What do you make of the verb tenses in the answer?


5.  List the priority of the statement in order:





Well, after we had taken the pictures at the church, we were on our way out when we saw a boat outside of this little brush area that was underwater.





 1.   What do you make of the chronology of this statement?







When we were coming out, we saw them. They just waved at us, like we were -- you know, friendly, very friendly wave. We were on our way -- so we just continued, took a few more pictures, continued out. And we were, I don`t know, maybe halfway to the U.S. I can`t really give you a great idea of where exactly.




 Note the underlined words and analyze/comment upon:

1.  "just"


2.  "friendly" and "very friendly"

3.  "can't"


















VAN SUSTEREN: Were you riding side by side at the time you were flag or was he behind you? What happened?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: He was between me and the boats. So he was keeping himself between me and the three boats that were shooting.





 What do you know about the research of Mark McClish (www.statementanalysis.com) on the number three?





VAN SUSTEREN: Did they say anything to you these people? Did they ever get close enough to say anything to you?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No, they didn't.

What do you make of this answer?



VAN SUSTEREN: Had you seen them before the encounter?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No. We haven't seen any boats from the time that we had launched to the time that we were at the church.

Please analyze both the question and the answer:




VAN SUSTEREN: So, as you are fleeing, bullets are flying, you look at your husband, is that right?

What is wrong with this question?



TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I saw two shots hit next to me. And I looked back at my husband, that's when I saw, that he was flying over the jet ski.







VAN SUSTEREN: What did you do next?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I turned around to go help him, see if I could get him back on my jet ski and get out of there.


 This is a critical point of her statement.  

Analyze:  "back"



Remember, "what did you do next?" is an excellent question that allowed Tiffany Hartley, the subject, to enter the Free Editing Process where she is choosing her own words.  





VAN SUSTEREN: When you were doing that, when you were attempting to help your husband, where were those other boats?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...


 This answer indicates deception.  

Give as much detail as you are able to explain why I have concluded deception.  Stay within principle. 

















VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: And meet up with the other two boats.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I told them please don't shoot, don't shoot.




 Analysis:  




VAN SUSTEREN: At that point your husband was there. Was he within reach of you?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I had a hold of him and I had a hold of my ski. We were both in the water, at that time


 You should note:

"jet ski"

"boat"

"ski"


What do you conclude about the change of language?




VAN SUSTEREN: So how did you get away? If you got in other boat, and you are hanging on to your husband, hanging on to the jet ski, what happened?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: After I told them please don't shoot, they left and went with the other two boats. I got on my boat and I was trying to pull him up on my ski. And I couldn't get him up. I felt like God was telling me I had to go otherwise I wasn't going to make it out. I had to go past them. So I on my ski and I had to leave David behind.



We have reached a critical point of the account.  

1.  Why is the word "left" in blue?



2.  The language changed again from "boat" to "ski"    Explain: 






3.  What does Divinity mean in this statement?





4.  Explain the inclusion of emotions here.  





"I felt like God was telling me..."













VAN SUSTEREN: You actually drove towards those boats?



TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes. I had to drive towards boats, go past them to get to safety.


VAN SUSTEREN: How close did you [get to] them when you drove past them?
TIFFANY HARTLEY: I honestly have no idea. I didn't and look at them. I just drove and went as fast as my jet ski could go.













VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think the motive was?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Who knows? We have no idea. Most likely they just wanted money, which we don't carry on our -- with us. And it could have turned to both of us dying or me getting kidnapped, I don't know. We have no idea what the motive was.

















END OF PART ONE 
Wish to help?

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

I remember hearing about this, but not her whole story. How bizarre. I can't imagine any reason they would have not killed her. They were fine with killing the man, why did they decide not to kill her?

I'm not good at SA, but it just doesn't add up!

Anonymous said...

I also clearly remember this woman telling people her dear husband was shot in the back of the head, while making a pointing motion directly in the middle of her forehead while saying 'i saw he was shot'.

Also, wouldn't you fall off behind your jet ski if it was running and you fell off? Not often do you go forward off one unless you hit something.

jo said...

And we were, I don`t know, maybe halfway to the U.S. I can`t really give you a great idea of where exactly.

If you think of a river with a bank on each side. If she were half way across and they were between her and the US shore, why go directly toward them? I would head upstream or downstream and then head for shore.

Terrence said...

She is trying to convince not convey.

Not to mention the cartel story isn't remotely believable.

Chris Hugh said...

I think "who knows?" means either 1) I know, and I'm not telling you; or 2) I don't know and I don't care and I don't think anyone should care.

Chris Hugh said...

Her statement shows there are things she doesn't want to talk about, but I think survivor's guilt can adequately explain it. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1309/07/se.02.html

Chris Hugh said...

Leaving a survivor to tell the tale adds to the terror if they killed him to warn people away from the area. More info here. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1309/07/se.02.html

LGR said...

OT: Marine's mother breaks silence on search for daughter-in-law

Family of Twentynine Palms Marine John Corwin provides insight into disappearance of his wife Erin


http://www.kesq.com/news/marines-mother-breaks-silence-on-search-for-daughterinlaw/26857092

Anonymous said...

OT

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/09/border-patrol-official-dhs-ordered-illegal-immigrant-holding-facility-cleared-out-before-congressional-visit/

I'd like to know where the illegal immigrants are getting the thousands of dollars to pay the human traffickers. The woman and her son pictured looks well taken care of. I wish someone would let the American Citizens, the taxpayers, the legal citizens and the legal immigrants know what is really going on here. Yesterday I read about the diseases coming in here (not so simple as chicken pox), as well as all the "minor" gang members.

Anonymous said...

This goes along with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/09/the-one-question-the-government-doesnt-ask-when-handing-over-illegal-immigrant-children-to-relatives/

What would happen if the adult is deported, who would the child then live with? Oh that's right, they won't be deported because they're now caring for a child. This whole thing is a backwards mess.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I hope you will post some of the answers to this exercise. The word "just" is puzzling me.

john said...

Hi Anon,

I think the word "Just" sounds to casual, given what was supposed to be going on. It can also be used to compare or minimize.

Its the dropped pronoun before the word "Just" that caught my eye. This shows lack of commitment and ownership.

Vance Holmes said...

I hear the, "they just waved at us" as -- they only waved and did not speak. She is anticipating that the listener would expect them to have also spoken, so she's answering that question before it's asked. Maybe she does not want to invent dialogue.

Jodi Arias was reluctant to invent dialogue for her two phantom attackers.

Jen Ow said...

There is SO much to be gleaned from analysing only the first paragraph!

TIFFANY HARTLEY: "David and I were on the Mexico side taking pictures. And we were heading back. Just had some boats come after us and started chasing us and started shooting at us. I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me. And I looked back and David was hit."

-She was asked what happened, but she chose to begin her account by staing that they were on the Mexico side taking pictures, heading back. Not only is this out of order, it indicates that her priority is to establish that they were on the Mexico side, (out of US jurisdiction) and in a 'dangerous' setting. In the context of them being accosted, and her husband being murdered, it is insignificant to establish their location, be it over the border, or otherwise. If a mexican 'pirate' wanted to rob/murder them, would he really be deterred by an imaginary barrier which seperates US territory, from Mexico.

-She drops her pronoun when stating that the BOATS came after them, and she minimizes the aggresive action she describes by using the word 'just'.

- BOATS do not chase after people, their operators do. However she makes no mention of the operators of the boats, nor does she say how many boats there were, or how many assailants were aboard each, etc.

-She states that the BOATS 'started' chasing them, and 'started' shooting at them. When a subject says something 'started' happening, rather than stating what happened, we should wonder if the action actually took place, or if it was completed.

- Just as BOATS do not chase, they definitely do not SHOOT at people. It is very unexpected that she would attribute the gunfire to the boats, as the memory of having a person point a gun at her and fire, would surely be tattooed on her brain. This, along with her present tense verb usage throughout, indicates she is not speaking from experiential memory.

- She begins two sentences with 'and', indicating missing information.

-She shows her priority is describing what happened to HER, and the danger that SHE was in, by stating (again in present tense, rather than past tense) that bullets were 'going over' her, and 'hitting behind' her, before she finally gets around to the headline of the event...her husband being shot.

-Her husband being shot and killed, IS 'what happened', yet it is the last thing she speaks about in her answer. It may be that she is adding in extra details to persuade, rather than conveying what took place, or she may be stalling to temporarily avoid the stress of directly lying about how her husband actually died.


Jen Ow said...

I haven't read anything on this case for a while, but as far as I know, there's no evidence indicating that David Hartley was even there that day! (Other than Tiffany's highly suspect story.)

His body was never recovered, nor was his jet ski. Why would the 'pirates'/ cartel members bother to remove the body of Hartley, yet leave the decapitated body of a law enforcement officer to be found?

Jenny said...

There's no quotes to analyze here yet, but I'm very concerned about a local missing woman:
http://fox2now.com/2014/07/08/search-underway-for-missing-person-in-ste-genevieve-county/

I don't know her personally, but know people who do.

It doesn't make sense that she wandered off with a broken toe and not her walking boot. I've had a broken toe and it's very painful. I needed the boot!

Anonymous said...

I posted this in the wrong spot earlier.

I am not reading comments until I am done with the analysis but I wanted to touch on this: Why do some people say "hello"?

It's ingrained in us from when we are little and it's a habit. If you aren't really in a panic needing help, your synapses would be firing normally and a normal conditioned response is a greeting.

There is a part of your brain, the amygdala, that is where your fight or flight center is and when the amygdala is engaged, "normal" isn't possible. Your brain is bathed in cortisol and adrenaline and the conditioned response is overridden. Sorry, I'm a neuropsych geek

john said...

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I turned around to go help him, see if I could get him back on my jet ski and get out of there.

This is a critical point of her statement.

Analyze: "back"


I think is her first major slip up. first she tells us she "looked back at my husband, that's when I saw, that he was flying over the jet ski."

She they says "See if I could get him back on my jet ski and get out of there."

This part of her statement suggest that he was on her jet ski by using the words "Back on". If he came off his jet ski, i would expect her to say "see if I could get him on my jet ski". Extra words give us extra information. By using the additional word "Back" we can then enter into her language and ask. What do you mean when you say "back" on your jet ski ?.

john said...

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...

We have a change in language, from "boat to Jet ski". There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. Every word means something Different. Where we have a change in language, we look to see if there is justification. The "Gun" was in my holster i took it out and fired, i then put my "pistol" back in my holster. Before they fired, it is a gun, once they have fired, it becomes a pistol. Here we see justification for the change in language. I don't see any justification for the change in her language.

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...

If there were two away from her, and one came up to her, then there can only be one pointing the gun, yet she says "they" pointed the gun at me. Also, how can they talk amongst themselves when there is only one that came up to her. She then says "and pointed it back at me". Pointed what back at her? We again have a change in language with no justification, "boat/jet ski.

Then they decided to leave. .

We have here a skip in time (Temporal lacunae). There is missing information.

decided to leave

Given the enormity of the situation, why would they start discussing amongst themselves whether or not to leave. This is all to casual.

john said...

and they pointed the gun at me.

Deception indicated.

Articles a reliable just like pronouns.

We see here she uses the article "The gun", yet, she as yet to introduce the gun.

There is a sequence we follow.

I saw "A" car speed past me. I went around the corner and saw "the" same car parked up. Once i introduce the car as "A" car, i have identified it. Once i have identified it, it then becomes "the" car.

She doesn't introduce the "Gun", but, calls it "the" gun. This is out of sequence. It breaks all the rules of progression from "a" to "the".

john said...

VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think the motive was?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Who knows? We have no idea. Most likely they just wanted money, which we don't carry on our -- with us. And it could have turned to both of us dying or me getting kidnapped, I don't know. We have no idea what the motive was.


Who knows?

She answers the question with a question, making the question itself sensitive.

We have no idea

The question is directed at her, but she answers with the plural "We". This is used to share guilt or responsibility (Dillingham)

We have no idea

It is difficult to believe that she has "no idea". We all have an idea about everything, we may not be right, but, we have an idea. It can also be employed to stop the flow of information, and that of a lazy mind.

Most likely they just wanted money, which we don't carry on our -- with us

just wanted money,

What else is she comparing money to.?

which we don't carry on our -- with us

There is missing information here. Was she going to say "On our jet ski/boat. Again she uses the plural when the question is directed at her.

These are some of the red flags i picked up on.

Anon 19 said...

Off Topic

Regarding her stay in rehab with Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford, LeeAnn McRobb was quoted saying:

“I am not a home wrecker,” McRobb said. “I don’t even want to use that word, ever. That word is horrible and I don’t want to be referenced as that word ever because it’s not true. People say I was sexual with the mayor and others there, but it is not even remotely close to the truth. Hell no. Rob and I were close buds and that is it. Nothing more.”

Anonymous said...

Gee, that's real convincing. ;)

trustmeigetit said...





OT.



Angelic 'Anji' Dean, the missing teen from WA who had left a note in her journal that said “if you are reading this I am missing or dead” was found safe in a shopping mall.



Can’t seem to find much more detail but there is clearly a story here.

Anonymous said...

OT Peter would you please analyse Kevin Mullaney's statements about the night Celina Cass went missing?

"All the vehicles were in the driveway as normal," he said. "The door was open. Everybody's sleeping. The lights are off. I just turned on the light, made a couple of sandwiches, watched TV and went to bed."

Mullaney said he went upstairs about 1 a.m. and was out the door by 6:15 a.m. for a job he had in Canaan, Vt.

He said none of the cars in the driveway appeared to have moved at all overnight. He said he didn't see Celina at all that night or in the morning.

News 9 asked him about whether Celina was sleeping on the couch.

"If she's by herself, she does," he said. "Like, if her sister's not there, she sleeps upstairs because she's afraid of the dark. I figured both of them were there because Celina's not upstairs."

But Celina's sister, Kayla, wasn't home that night. She was at a sleepover with a friend, something Mullaney said he didn't learn until later.

In the early stages of the investigation, Mullaney confirmed, he was treated like a suspect. His red pickup truck was taken in for forensic testing.

"Polygraph tests, DNA tests, pictures," he said. "There were a million and one questions."

Mullaney said he agreed to a full-body photograph. He said he was told investigators were looking for signs of a struggle, such as scrapes or bruises.

News 9 earlier interviewed Louisia Cass' estranged husband, Wendell Noyes. While Mullaney agreed with Noyes that the front door was left unlocked for Mullaney that night -- as Noyes told News 9 -- Mullaney and Louisia Cass disputed Noye's statement about when he went to bed that night.

"I was at a friend's house, and we were just driving around, and I saw (Noyes) there, and we just kept driving around and went back to (my friend's) house," Mullaney said. "Then, a few hours later, I go home."



Read more: http://www.wmur.com/Cass-Houseguest-Describes-Night-Girl-Disappeared/11839510#ixzz374ybTAul

Chris Hugh said...

Thank God! And thanks for mentioning this. It's good to see good news!

Maggie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rachael said...

OT: Russel Lindstrom arrested, and is being charged with manslaughter.

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/25980852/smith-co-father-arrested-for-toddlers-death-in-hot-truck

Anonymous said...

OT: Regarding leaving kid sin hot cars, have you guys seen this video?

http://www.whas11.com/news/national/Man-sits-in-hot-car-to-plead-for-end-to-child-deaths-266600491.html

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the update Rachael!

After further investigation by the Smith County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Investigation Division, warrants were issued for Lindstrom and signed by Judge Christi Kennedy of the 114th District Court. Lindstrom is being charged with one count of manslaughter, with a $150,000 bond, and one count of injury to a child, with a $50,000 bond. Lindstrom was arrested at a mobile home park in the 17000 block of Highway 155 South. He is currently being booked into the Smith County Jail.

Anonymous said...

And they're setting up a fund for legal fees...

Maybe these "accidents" will stop happening, with the parents now being held accountable.

I'm sure once in a great while there might be a true accident, but not to the extent that this keeps happening.

Jen Ow said...

OT-

I agree Trustme, there's got to be quite a story there.

It seems staged, with the journal entry, the text, and her telling teachers that she was caught up in something bad.

A 'human trafficker' is after her, yet they allowed her the time and oppurtunity to write journal entries, tell people, and text goodbye to her boyfriend, with an explanation that implicates them in her forced disappearance?!

Stranger things have happened, but that's pretty far fetched!

The sex trade targets girls who are vulnerable, and out of the loop so to speak. In cases I have seen, the girls were captured by some kind of ruse, and never suspected that they were being pursued for sex trade purposes. For instance, the 14 yo girl, and her cousin who appeared on one of the Dateline type shows. They were offered a ride home by a man they thought was their friends uncle, but he kidnapped them and forced them into prostitution by violence, and threats of killing them, their family, etc.

That kind of kidnapping makes sense, as the girls were seperated from their family/support, and surviving at the hands of a violent criminal, who they had to obey to stay alive. What took place with this Washington girl is the opposite, as it appears she left the support and protection of her family, to go with someone whom she feared violence from, and even death.

Whatever the case, I'm glad she is home safe, and I'm anxious for her to make a statement. The circumstances don't seem to add up, but maybe there is more to the story.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
OT Peter would you please analyse Kevin Mullaney's statements about the night Celina Cass went missing?

"All the vehicles were in the driveway as normal," he said. "The door was open. Everybody's sleeping. The lights are off. I just turned on the light, made a couple of sandwiches, watched TV and went to bed."

Mullaney said he went upstairs about 1 a.m. and was out the door by 6:15 a.m. for a job he had in Canaan, Vt.

He said none of the cars in the driveway appeared to have moved at all overnight. He said he didn't see Celina at all that night or in the morning.

News 9 asked him about whether Celina was sleeping on the couch.

"If she's by herself, she does," he said. "Like, if her sister's not there, she sleeps upstairs because she's afraid of the dark. I figured both of them were there because Celina's not upstairs."

But Celina's sister, Kayla, wasn't home that night. She was at a sleepover with a friend, something Mullaney said he didn't learn until later.

In the early stages of the investigation, Mullaney confirmed, he was treated like a suspect. His red pickup truck was taken in for forensic testing.

"Polygraph tests, DNA tests, pictures," he said. "There were a million and one questions."

Mullaney said he agreed to a full-body photograph. He said he was told investigators were looking for signs of a struggle, such as scrapes or bruises.

News 9 earlier interviewed Louisia Cass' estranged husband, Wendell Noyes. While Mullaney agreed with Noyes that the front door was left unlocked for Mullaney that night -- as Noyes told News 9 -- Mullaney and Louisia Cass disputed Noye's statement about when he went to bed that night.

"I was at a friend's house, and we were just driving around, and I saw (Noyes) there, and we just kept driving around and went back to (my friend's) house," Mullaney said. "Then, a few hours later, I go home."



Read more: http://www.wmur.com/Cass-Houseguest-Describes-Night-Girl-Disappeared/11839510#ixzz374ybTAul


It is already posted. I will try to find it.

Chris Hugh said...

Here is the Celina Cass analysis. There's another one posted the day after this one too.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2012/11/celina-cass-update.html?m=1

PiscesDreamer said...

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No. We haven't seen any boats from the time that we had launched to the time that we were at the church.

If this is what she actually said, she changed tenses in this sentence. "We HAVEN'T," then, "we HAD launched," and "we WERE at the church."

She started in present tense, then abruptly changed to past tense. If she was reliving the event, she would have reported in present tense throughout. If she was simply recounting the event, she would have used only past tense.